Possibilities and Risks of Narrative in International Relations and Political Science
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.espo.n61a10Keywords:
International Relations, Political Science, Political Theory, Epistemology, Research, ComplexityAbstract
The article intervenes in the international conversation about the possibilities and limitations of narrative writing in international relations and political science. Concretely, it proposes a theoretical comparison between “fortress writing” and “narrative voice”. The first corresponds to the style of thinking and writing that has dominated these disciplines. Instead, we show that the narrative voice constitutes an opportunity to problematize and loosen the most constrictive features of fortress writing. The text does not propose the generalized adoption of narrative writing —an unviable and even undesirable project— but suggests that, when successful, narrative expands possibilities for research and reflection, enabling less “bellicose” ways of producing knowledge. Thus, narratives open a breathing space in academia. However, as with any intellectual approach, narrative writing entails some risks. Instead of engaging on common critiques, already dealt with by the literature, the essay explores three risks that threaten narrative to become another type of fortress writing: the attachment to innocence, the attachment to trauma, and the moralizing denial of complexity.
Downloads
References
(1) Adorno, Theodor W. (1994). Dialéctica negativa. Madrid: Taurus.
(2) Bannerji, Himani. (2005). Building from Marx: Reflections on Class and Race. Social Justice, 32 (4), pp. 144-162.
(3) Blatt, Jessica. (2018). Race and the Making of American Political Science. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. https://doi.org/10.9783/9780812294897
(4) Brigg, Morgan y Bleiker, Roland. (2010). Autoethnographic International Relations: Exploring the Self as a Source of Knowledge. Review of International Studies, 36, pp. 779-798. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210510000689
(5) Brown, Wendy. (1995). States of Injury: Power and Freedom in Late Modernity. Princeton: Princeton University. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780691201399
(6) Brown, Wendy. (2011). La teoría política no es un lujo: una respuesta a «La teoría política como profesión» de Timothy Kaufman-Osborn. Crítica Contemporánea, 1, pp. 1-9.
(7) Burnier, DeLysa. (2006). Encounters with the Self in Social Science Research: A Political Scientist Looks at Autoethnography. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35 (4), pp. 410-418. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891241606286982
(8) Clare, Eli. (2017). Brilliant Imperfection. Grappling with Cure. Durham: Duke University. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780822373520
(9) Dauphinee, Elizabeth. (2013). The Politics of Exile. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203077986
(10) Dauphinee, Elizabeth y Inayatullah, Naeem (Eds.). (2016). Narrative Global Politics. London: Routledge.
(11) Doty, Roxanne Lynn. (2015). A Mostly True Day in Eloy, Arizona. Journal of Narrative Politics, 2 (1), pp. 22-24.
(12) Dunn, Kevin C. (2016). What Might Still Sputter Forth. En: Dauphinee, Elizabeth & Inayatullah, Naeem (Eds.). Narrative Global Politics (pp. 139-152). London: Routledge.
(13) Edkins, Jenny. (2016). Loss of a Loss: Ground Zero, Spring 2014. En: Dauphinee, Elizabeth y Inayatullah, Naeem (Eds.). Narrative Global Politics (pp. 97-103). London: Routledge.
(14) Giroux, Henry. (2014). Neoliberalism’s War on Higher Education. Chicago: Haymarket.
(15) Gramsci, Antonio. (2008). Selections from the Prison Notebooks. New York: International Publishers. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv120qr2d.14
(16) Hite, Katherine y Huguet, Jordi. (2016). Luz guía. Crítica Contemporánea, 6, pp. 43-52.
(17) Horkheimer, Max. (1978). Théorie critique. Paris: Payot.
(18) Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus. (2011). The Conduct of Inquiry in International Relations: Philosophy of Science and its Implications for the Study of World Politics. London: Routledge.
(19) Inayatullah, Naeem (Ed.). (2011). Autobiographical International Relations: I, IR. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203837221
(20) Inayatullah, Naeem. (2020, May 4). Internal Simultaneity: A Science of Autobiography. E-International Relations. https://www.e-ir.info/2020/05/04/opinion-internal-simultaneity-a-science-of-autobiography/
(21) King, Gary, Keohane, Robert O. y Verba, Sidney. (2000). El diseño de la investigación social: la inferencia científica en los estudios cualitativos. Madrid: Alianza.
(22) Kirby, Paul. (2016). AUTO/BIO/GRAPH. En: Dauphinee, Elizabeth y Inayatullah, Naeem (Eds.). Narrative Global Politics (pp. 153-158). London: Routledge.
(23) Knafo, Samuel. (2016). Bourdieu and the Dead End of Reflexivity: On the Impossible Task of Locating the Subject. Review of International Studies, 42 (1), pp. 25-47. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210515000121
(24) Levine, Daniel J. and McCourt, David M. (2018). Why Does Pluralism Matter When We Study Politics? A View from Contemporary International Relations. Perspectives on Politics, 16 (1), pp. 92-109. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592717002201
(25) Marcuse, Hebert. (1991). One-Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society. Boston: Beacon.
(26) Marx, Karl. (1978). Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844. En: Tucker, R. C. (Ed.). The Marx-Engels Reader (pp. 66-125). New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
(27) Mohanty, Chandra Talpade. (2013). Transnational Crossings: on Neoliberalism and Radical Critique. Signs, 38 (4), pp. 967-991. https://doi.org/10.1086/669576
(28) Monroe, Kristen Renwick. (2005). Perestroika! The Raucous Rebellion in Political Science. New Haven: Yale University.
(29) Naumes, Sarah. (2015). Is All «I» IR? Millennium-Journal of International Studies, 43 (3), pp. 820-832. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829815576820
(30) Nietzsche, Friedrich. (1989). Genealogy of Morals. New York: Vintage.
(31) Öberg, Dan. (2015). Violent Fragments. Journal of Narrative Politics, 1 (2), pp. 150-152.
(32) Öberg, Dan. (2016). Tomorrow the War Starts. Journal of Narrative Politics, 2 (2), pp. 169-175.
(33) O’Shea, Saoirse C. (2019). My Dysphoria Blues: Or Why I Cannot Write an Autoethnography. Management Learning, 50 (1), pp. 38-49. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507618791115
(34) Picq, Manuela L. (2016). El caminar de las manuelas. Crítica Contemporánea, 6, pp. 124-138.
(35) Pin-Fat, Véronique. (2016). Dissolutions of the Self. En: Dauphinee, Elizabeth y Inayatullah, Naeem (Eds.). Narrative Global Politics (pp. 25-34). London: Routledge.
(36) Ravecca, Paulo. (2019a). The Politics of Political Science: Re-Writing Latin American Experiences. London & New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351110556
(37) Ravecca, Paulo. (2019b). Respuesta a Jerónimo Ríos Sierra y Diego Rossello. Eunomía, 17, pp. 394-403. https://doi.org/10.20318/eunomia.2019.5044
(38) Ravecca, Paulo y Dauphinee, Elizabeth. (2018). Narrative and the Possibilities for Scholarship. International Political Sociology, 12 (2), pp. 125-138. https://doi.org/10.1093/ips/olx029
(39) Ravecca, Paulo y Dauphinee, Elizabeth. (2016). Narrativa (y) política: ideas que solo se pueden contar. Critica Contemporánea, 6, pp. 1-4.
(40) Ravecca, Paulo y Rossello, Diego. (2020). Deconstruyendo el yo disciplinar: el vínculo entre ciencia política y teoría política en América Latina. Civilizar, 20 (39), pp. 115-125. https://doi.org/10.22518/jour.ccsh/2020.2a07
(41) Rieiro, Anabel; Rinesi, Eduardo y Ravecca, Paulo. (2019). Pensamientos críticos. Revista de Ciencias Sociales, 32 (44), pp. 9-13.
(42) Smith-McGregor, Kilby. (2016). Seeing Red. Crítica Contemporánea, 6, pp. 118-123.
(43) Sosa Villada, Camila. (2016, septiembre 16). Pobres y estúpidos niños ricos. La Tinta. https://latinta.com.ar/2016/09/pobres-y-estupidos-ninos-ricos/
(44) Traversa, Federico. (s. f.). Maquiavelo y el arbitraje doble ciego (especulación inédita). Academia.edu. https://www.academia.edu/10735317/Maquiavelo_y_el_arbitraje_doble_ciego_especulaci%C3%B3n_in%C3%A9dita_
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Estudios Políticos
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Estudios Políticos authorizes the copy of articles and texts for academic purposes or the internal use of institutions as long as the proper citation of the source is provided. Total or partial reproduction of the journal with different purposes should have an explicit authorization by the Institute of Politic Studies of the University of Antioquia.
The views and opinions expressed in the articles are those of the authors and do not necessary reflect or bind those of the Institute of Political Studies of the University of Antioquia.
